Island of Lost Souls.

Review #2121: Island of Lost Souls.

Cast: 

Charles Laughton (Dr. Moreau), Richard Arlen (Edward Parker), Leila Hyams (Ruth Thomas), Bela Lugosi (Sayer of the Law), Kathleen Burke (Lota, The Panther Woman), Arthur Hohl (Montgomery), Stanley Fields (Captain Davies), Paul Hurst (Donahue), Hans Steinke (Ouran), and Tetsu Komai (M'Ling) Directed by Erle C. Kenton (#845 - The Ghost of Frankenstein, #847 - House of Frankenstein, #849 - House of Dracula)

Review: 

 "They give us a chance to let our imagination run wild. The art department can go to town on creep sets. Prop men have fun with cobwebs. The cameraman has fun with trick lighting and shadows. The director has fun. We have more fun making a horror picture than a comedy."

I'm sure you are familiar with the scenario: a 1930s horror film loosely based on a novel. This time around, it is a Paramount production based on the H. G. Wells novel The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896) (describing it as "an exercise in youthful blasphemy"), since the studio managed to do well enough with the release of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the previous year. The film was written by Waldemar Young (writer on countless productions for over a decade such as London After Midnight) and Philip Wylie (more known for his stories such as When Worlds Collide as opposed to his screenplays, which started with this). Norman Taurog was apparently meant to be the director but was replaced by Erle C. Kenton, who had broken into film in the 1920s after forays into teaching, animal exhibiting, and vaudeville.  In a career of B films of comedy and horror, it is likely Kenton's best remembered film. Apparently, Wells (still living at the time) disliked the resulting movie, once calling it a "complete lack of imagination." In the years since, there have been a handful of subsequent adaptations, such as Terror Is a Man (1959) and The Twilight People (1972), each directed by Filipino filmmaker Eddie Romero (each of which did their own thing). 1977 saw an adaptation by American International Pictures with Don Taylor directing before John Frankenheimer tried his hand in 1996. The irony is that both directors maligned the original film as terrible and then they ended up making adaptations that nobody remembers now. A limited array of home video releases made the film a weird one to see for years, since the lost camera negative of Island of Lost Souls meant one had to combine a bunch of varying prints to make just one that worked until Criterion restored the film at considerable challenge in 2011.

It's funny, Wells intended for Moreau to be a well intentioned mad scientist when it came to doing vivisection on animals in an attempt to make them more human, and here he is getting mad at a movie that manages to show Moreau for what really makes sense: the man is a reasoned nut that made a nightmare when he thought he was making a creation fit for mankind. The terror is present quite effectively in its 70 minute runtime in disturbing qualities, one that has a tremendous performance to lead it off to go with a handful of nice shots from cinematographer Karl Struss that sometimes deal with the creature effects by Wally Westmore. It is that certain kind of chilling thar makes one look between the lines when it comes looking at human nature, whether that involves foolish curiosity or the unraveling of all that matters in group structures. Laughton dominates the film when it comes to understanding the mad scientist role as one that perfectly knows themselves to be doing their actions as a sane man rather than a blustering doubter. One believes right away that this is a man who senses only in his own brilliance of creating something great for man, whether that means serving as a sort of God for his creations or in trying to bring man and beast together. Arlen does fine with the material as the general normal focus in that way you would think for a reasoned man trying to survive in unreasonable times. Believe it or not, Burke was actually marketed as "The Panther Woman" because of a talent contest. Paramount held one for the film that saw the then fashion model and Chicago radio actress win from a pool of thousands of people. By 1938, she had done a handful more films but left Hollywood. She makes more of an impression than Hyams in terms of mystery and interest, but that's about that. Those who know Lugosi and his voice will see him right from the go even with makeup, but I enjoy seeing his presence in the attempt to assert order and reason even among fur. By the time the film has built its disturbing mannerisms of creation to a chaotic end, the experience has been a worthy one for consistent atmospheric creeps that shows there was more than one horror studio who could try their hand at horror, even if the forthcoming Production Code would try to neuter some of the ideas in later films. As a whole, it is a pretty good film worth it for Laughton and all that comes with it in disturbing quality.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Two Thousand Maniacs!, y'all.

Movie Crazy.

Review #2024: Movie Crazy.

Cast: 

Harold Lloyd (Harold Hall / Trouble), Constance Cummings (Mary Sears), Kenneth Thomson (Vance), Louise Closser Hale (Mrs Kitterman), Spencer Charters (J.L. O'Brien), Robert McWade (Wesley Kitterman, Producer), Eddie Fetherston (Bill - assistant director), Sydney Jarvis (The Director), Harold Goodwin (Miller), Mary Doran (Margie), DeWitt Jennings (Mr Hall), and Lucy Beaumont (Mrs Hall) Directed by Clyde Bruckman (#908 - The General, #1304 - Welcome Danger, #1621 - Feet First) and Harold Lloyd.

Review: 

I will admit that there it has been slow road to cover the talkie era of Harold Lloyd, who certainly deserves to be remembered for his contributions to comedy. He made the transition to sound at the age of 36 after countless silent comedies two-fold: Speedy was initially released as a silent feature in April of 1928 before a version that added a few sound sequences came out in December. The following year saw the release of Welcome Danger. Movie Crazy is the third Lloyd talkie film of the seven he would do as star, most of them with him as producer. Clyde Bruckman was recruited to direct Lloyd once again, having directed him for three previous features (which involved the sound version of Speedy, Welcome Danger, and Feet First). He had gone from would-be sportswriter to intertitle writer to gag man for Buster Keaton and later director for various comedy production. However, Bruckman soon fell under the influence of what curtailed his career: alcoholism. As such, it fell to Lloyd to assist in the directing chair (which wasn't too odd, as he had co-directed a few of his own films, such as The Kid Brother, which had four directors), although he did not claim credit. The dialogue and screenplay was done by Vincent Lawrence while the story was done by Agnes Christine Johnston, John Grey, and Felix Adler. Lloyd and Ernie Bushmiller also contributed un-credited work on the script. After Bruckman was relegated to writing for comedy rather than directing it by 1935, he got into the habit of "re-utilizing" certain gags from his older productions for comedy short-subjects that he was doing at Columbia Pictures (such as for The Three Stooges), and one of them is the magician's-coat sequence in Movie Crazy. He would crib the scene for multiple productions and was sued by Lloyd each time for copyright, which Lloyd would win (one might wonder why Lloyd was so easy to sue, but imagine being put in a spot where your director and usual gag-assistant is too drunk to really direct and then he decides years later to crib a scene that originally had you as star). Bruckman committed suicide in 1955 at the age of 60.

Stop if you have heard this before: a well-meaning boy or fumbler type of character tries to make it good in a place that seems to be too much for one too oblivious to know how to play the game. Lloyd may have been the shrewdest in marketing himself for selective appearances in the early sound era, but that does not certainly mean that he fared the best among the silent-to-sound transitioners. The film has been labeled by some as one of Lloyd's best in the sound era, and I suppose we shall see if that is fully true at the end of the road, although truthfully, I am salivating at the prospect seeing Leo McCarey direct him in The Milky Way (1936), just two films after this one. Of course, when compared to Feet First and Welcome Danger, Movie Crazy is practically an ice-cold water bottle on a hot day, so take that for what it is worth with a 98-minute movie built on a handful of sight gags and the classic misunderstandings that I am sure you all know from certain comedies and so on and so forth (such as the aforementioned use of a magician's coat to wreak havoc for a dance). Anyway, let's get to the point: the movie is fine. It definitely seems a bit more reliant on visual gags to go along with the fact that the movie is basically two-fold: the fumbling young man that stumbles through the motions of trying to make something in Hollywood and the fumbling young man that stumbles through his feelings for two totally-not similar looking women. Honestly, I could really do with more stuff involving him bumbling as an "innocent" when it comes to the movie industry rather than when trying to not fumble between "romances", because if he wants me to believe in something for a guy that doesn't exactly have that much time to make me think he is still the picture of innocence (the man was near 40), I would rather have the first part, but I'm sure getting the girl is giving what people want, not more scenes involving him try to not cause the camera to explode when he forgets a line or makes for a terrible extra. Actually, Cummings does do a pretty good job in terms of being as an assertive contrast required to help set the tone of what goes on with a rough industry that demands everything everywhere all at once, and her treating Lloyd as a relief rather than a hinderance makes it a curious experience. Of course, she is also playing a character that Lloyd also falls for and go figure that she has a problem with him falling for the "Mexican character" that she is playing in makeup. Thomson is a decent foil to the proceedings in terms of being someone for Lloyd to counter against when it comes to the most interesting sequence: the fight scene at the end, one told with little dialogue that takes place on a dripping wet ship set that is executed quite well in execution and pacing. As a whole, whether serving as Lloyd's best sound film or not, it is a fairly decent comedy film from its time that will prove just how long he had a grip on an audience that needed a laugh and found him comforting to go along with.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Freaks (1932).

Review #1897: Freaks.

Cast: 

Wallace Ford (Phroso), Leila Hyams (Venus), Olga Baclanova (Cleopatra), Rosco Ates (Roscoe), Henry Victor (Hercules), Harry Earles (Hans), Daisy Earles (Frieda), Rose Dione (Madame Tetrallini), Daisy and Violet Hilton (The Siamese twins), Schlitzie (Himself), Josephine Joseph (Half Woman-Half Man), Johnny Eck (Half-Boy), Frances O'Connor (Armless girl), Peter Robinson (Human skeleton), Olga Roderick (Bearded lady), and Koo Koo (Herself) Directed by Tod Browning (#031 - Dracula, #470 - Mark of the Vampire, and #516 - The Unknown)

Review: 

Admittedly, a horror movie can take time to appreciate, particularly ones that were given the shaft like this one was. After all, the director associated with a film involving "Freaks" seemed exactly the one to direct it. Tod Browning left high school before graduation in order to join the circus. After years of carnivals and vaudeville, he became an actor in 1909, primarily in slapstick shorts, although he was hired in 1913 by D. W. Griffith near the twilight of his time at Biograph Studios. A 1915 accident involving him being drunk while at the wheel of an automobile led to injuries that kept him in bed for a considerable amount of time, which gave him inspiration to write (he had already done a few couple of short films as a director). He returned to work in film after time away, serving as an assistant director on Griffith's Intolerance (1916), and Jim Bludso (1917) was his first feature film. Browning's best work is associated with the star in Lon Chaney, who he did ten features with from 1919 to 1928 (Dracula, Browning's one key success in the sound genre with audiences, was meant to star Chaney before he fell ill). When the sound era dawned, Browning did nine feature films before retiring in 1939. The film is loosely based on the short story "Spurs" by Tod Robbins, and the screenplay was done by Willis Goldbeck and Leon Gordon, while Browning also served as producer. Test screenings of the film for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) proved a tough pill to swallow. Apparently, people ran out of the theater halfway through the movie - I guess a horror film just can't be too scary, and MGM cut the movie from an original run-time of 90 minutes to an hour. The climax was cut down, worse yet. The film did not have the "happy" ending in the original cut, instead going further into just what happened with the character of Cleopatra beyond a scream (because the original had her get trapped under a tree struck by lightning). So yes, the fate of one of the characters is kept the same, but with a twist: their companion is present this time around, albeit as a soprano because of castration.  Maybe it seemed strange for MGM to be the production company. They did do a couple of features beforehand in the 1920s, most notably with Browning's London After Midnight and The Unknown, but I think you will agree that having Irving Thalberg in your corner could be a double-edged sword. Once the film came and went with the box office as a failure, Browning's career never recovered, and he retired after his 46th feature in Miracles for Sale (1939), and he died in 1962 at the age of 82. Hell, in the era of trying to remake movies that were pretty good already, why not try to cover features that were given the shaft like this one? You wouldn't even have to change much of the actual script (one that does the simple art of presenting people as they are), since the only thing necessary would be to just show things as originally intended in the ides of retribution in what it means to go against the collective.

From the contemporary reaction by certain critics, you would think Freaks showed people getting chopped in half. One review actually said that people should put in the hospital pathological ward if the viewer considered it to be entertainment. I think we can safely say that they were clearly wrong. Hell, it didn't even take that many decades for people to carefully recognize that the audience was wrong, because counterculture audiences in Europe found a liking for it in the 1960s, and it became a midnight movie to enjoy in later years. Yes, you could consider it as a melodrama with an ounce of horror for the climax, but that is what makes it all the more interesting and useful to consider in the place of 1930s horror (besides, one grows tired of people deeming movies as just melodramas rather than being, you know, horror, which could also go for so-called psychological thrillers"). It was disrespected in its time by audiences that just wouldn't accept the idea of presenting circus people as anything other than what people thought they were, and the fact that the 90-minute version does not survive is a straight tragedy. The horror is not the people of the circus that happen to have no arms or are conjoined twins, the horror is the people who treat them like crap. What does it mean to be normal is the question provided here, which is done in a thoughtful and entertaining way that was ahead of its time when it comes to "pretty" people being punished by others that get away with it. So yes, there is a mix of established actors (Ford, Hyams, Baclanova, and Victor) mixing with performers such as the Earles, Schlitzie, and the Hilton twins (there were plans to have bigger names cast against the circus people such as Myrna Loy and Victor McLaglen, but this fell through). Granted, the acting is a bit on the okay side, and I do wonder exactly how one came to the decision to cast siblings in the Earles as characters meant to have feelings for each other. Baclanova (once nicknamed "The Russian Tigress") is the key to the film when you boil it down to basics, the embodiment of the horror of man in the cruelty that can be shown to others not like them. Sure, Ford and Hyams are mild counters to that idea, but they are barely important in the long run when you want to see just where mistreatment of people can get you (it should be noted that they were actually vaudevillians before becoming involved in film). Far from exploitation, the circus performers are just shown being themselves, whether that involves a man being able to light a cigarette with no arms or legs or conjoined twins having distinct lives of love.

Oh sure, the climax is the highlight, but consider the gooble-gabble scene a couple of scenes beforehand. Here one is trying to welcome someone into the community despite their misgivings, and all they do is react in disgust at the idea that they are at your level. That would be a pretty sad thing to hear, so it works quite well with what is needed here. And then the climax happens in a flash: a dark night with rain and people that lurk in the background ready to strike. The ending shot should've just been the shot involving the final fate of one of the characters rather than just being a "happy" ending, if only because it is more fun to show the logical conclusion of doing a morality tale rather than just trying to suck up to audiences who think happy endings need to happen in horror too. As a whole, Freaks was ahead of its time, and a little more credit is given for this film for its quibbles (a cut pace and decent if not quite professional cast) because of how it was treated in getting to theaters as opposed to later films with misunderstandings. Had the original cut survived the way it was intended, we would think it was even better and give Browning even more credit as a director, one who specialized in the exotic, the bizarre or just the mystery that comes with life that shows just who the real freak is, which makes it a horror film worth investing all of your time in as opposed to just cutting to the end for the big highlight.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

I Was Born, But...

Review #1785: I Was Born, But...

Cast: 

Tatsuo Saitō (Chichi), Tomio Aoki (Keiji, Younger Son), Mitsuko Yoshikawa (Haha, Yoshi's Wife), Hideo Sugawara (Ryoichi, Older Son), Takeshi Sakamoto (Juuyaku Iwasaki, Executive), Teruyo Hayami (Fujin, Iwasaki's Wife), Seiichi Kato (Kodomo, Taro), Shoichi Kofujita (Kozou, Delivery Boy), and Seiji Nishimura (Sensei, Teacher) Directed by Yasujirō Ozu.

Review: 

“I started to make a film about children and ended up with a film about grownups; while I had originally planned to make a fairly bright little story, it changed while I was working on it …. The company hadn’t thought it would turn out this way. They were so unsure of it that they delayed its release for two months.”

The discussion over vaunted Japanese directors could be a lengthy one, but Yasujirō Ozu most certainly would be included early in the notations, one with a distinct style that captured a wry sense of life in his features that took his own pace to filmmaking. It was a viewing of the movie Civilization (1916) that inspired the Tokyo native to become a director. Although he had studied to become a teacher, these plans would soon scuttle for ambition to do film. He started with the Shochiku Film Company in 1923. He eventually moved from assistant directing to director by 1927, and he directed his debut feature with Sword of Penitence that year, although it is now lost, which is also the case with a number of his silent films. Incidentally, he did not make a sound film until 1936 (years after sound had come to Japan), and color wouldn't be seen in his films until the late 1950s. Ozu would do fifty-four films (for which over sixty percent survive) before he died at the age of sixty in 1963. He is regarded by many to be one of the most influential directors in world cinema.

Sometimes you need a movie [released as Umarete wa mita keredo] about what it is to be a kid. Sure, there are quite a few movies about kids dealing with stuff such as bullies, but one also has to deal with the other aspect of a messy growing childhood: seeing what your role models in a different light than once seen before. Ozu helped write the film alongside Geibei Ibushiya and Akira Fushimi; he would later essentially remake the film with Good Morning (1959). When it comes to lives of salarymen, sometimes their hierarchy really is like one seen in the schoolyard, complete with one select jester. In other words: it may be a coming-of-age movie, but that doesn't mean the journey is going to be a simple one, regardless of how much slapstick is present. Aoki (already familiar with Ozu after working with him in 1929) and Sugawara make an interesting group of kids to follow, ones who play well to what Ozu wants to say about human nature, whether one lives in the suburbs or in the distance. The movie takes its time with the kids, making sure that the horseplay (i.e. teasing) goes where it needs to with playful energy that reverberates well for anyone with a childhood without serving as an earworm itself in a game of memory. It is quite an amusing film in its 90 minute runtime that also manages to make a worthy drama come out of the edges. The kids don't need to contort into cliches or sentimentality to make its story hit any more than it needs to (i.e. one with skipping, forgery, and finding a bigger kid to fight battles). Saito proves the correct adult presence to match with the two kids, wrapped in patience and timing that doesn't become wrapped in the trap that comes in select coming-of-age films that turn the adult into outright foolery. Of course, that comes with sequence involving the kids and adults coming together to see a print together of antics in the workplace, which sets up the climax soon enough. It reveals the nature of what comes with the workplace sometimes: you can be a fair-minded parent that tries to do well for their kid, but it could all come unloose if they don't see you as the powerful figure in front of others. Kids are probably more worried about eating sparrow's eggs to get bigger before they will worry about their parent's job, but the quirks of growing up mean one has to see certain things up close, messy or not. Disappointment is inevitable in life for children, but it is the journey in trying to see past it that matters most (the notation for what the kids want to be growing up certainly proves that, particularly with the time made). As a whole, this is quite an interesting film, one that is packed with wry charm that fits well within telling a story of useful wit for both children and adults.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Vampyr.

Review #1734: Vampyr.

Cast: 

Nicolas de Gunzburg (Allan Grey), Rena Mandel (Giséle), Sybille Schmitz (Léone), Jan Hieronimko (The Village Doctor), Henriette Gérard (Marguerite Chopin), Maurice Schutz (The Lord of the Manor), Albert Bras (Old Servant), N. Babanini (His Wife), Jane Mora (Nurse), and Georges Boidin (The Limping Soldier) Directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer (#950 - Master of the House)

Review: 

"I wanted to create a waking dream on screen and show that horror is not to be found in the things around us but in our own subconscious,"

Oh sure, pick another director that dabbled once in horror and never again, why don't I. But with a reputation like Carl Theodor Dreyer, one can't exactly deny the curiosity that comes from a Danish-born director that liked to deal with personal struggles in provocative fashion that have made several folks believe him as one of the great directors of his time. From 1919 to 1964, he made fourteen feature films, and it is The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) that is generally felt to be his magnum opus. Of course, we are here to talk about the film that followed that one, and Vampyr (his tenth feature) was a French-German production. As one might know from the restoration notes, the film was produced in three different language versions: German, French, and English, and the original negative for picture and sound was lost; the version one can watch now comes from partially complete prints of the former two language versions. While the film was shot in France, the dubbing was done back in Germany. Christen Jul and Dreyer wrote the film with elements adapted from In a Glass Darkly, a collection of five Gothic horror mystery stories (Green Tea, The Familiar, Mr. Justice Harbottle, The Room in the Dragon Volant, Carmilla) that was published in 1872 by Sheridan Le Fanu. Elements from two of the stories (i.e. the latter two) are present here, at least when it comes to a female vampire and a scene of someone being buried alive (incidentally, Carmilla has been argued to be a key inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula). Unfortunately, the film was a failure on initial release, with reactions ranging from demands for refunds to a mental breakdown for Dreyer (of course, it should mentioned that his previous effort was also a flop at the time before becoming acclaimed in future years), and he would take over a decade before his next film.

Dreyer wanted to make a different film from all other films, one that in his eyes would break new ground for cinema. One could say he made an inspired effort with an eerie curiosity that seems plucked in the middle ground of the silent and sound era, divulging information in the manner of the former but utilizing sound in an interesting manner that makes this a curious outlier in world cinema in horror; Dreyer, when asked about just presenting the pages of the book as simple title cards for a potential Danish version, responded that the book is just as much an actor as the others (at any rate, anyone saying they can follow the film from start to finish without trouble is probably lying to you). Of course, it is also a movie that require a good deal of patience and some interpretation to appreciate in full detail, because it has its own take on the vampire that draws curiosity rather than easy scares (of course, some of the best horror films don't even have to spring to cheap thrills, so there's that). In a sense, one just has to take it like a dream and let it sift through your mind for attention. What better way to mediate on life than with creatures of the night? The film stars Baron Nicolas de Gunzburg under the stage name of "Julian West". Gunzburg was a French socialite and magazine editor (such as for Vogue), and this was his first and only feature film; Schmitz and Schutz were the only professional actors present here, as Gerard was a widow, Hieronimko was a journalist, and Mandel was a model. In this sense, perhaps it fits to have Gunzburg as our eyes in a film all about what is and what isn't there, and he does well with a detached sense of self that fits the atmosphere of what is needed here that never looks outmatched at any time. The other actors go accordingly with the subdued nature of what is happening here, best represented by a curious Hieronimko, who gets the strange honor of getting to look out the window to a giant face to run away from alongside other interesting moments to look at twice if one watches the film a bit more than once. By the time one finishes the film after 73 minutes, one will probably look on it with curious wander, whether because of just what exactly they saw, or because they want to see the film and its (deliberately) washed out look and the merits that come from a movie focused on being different and brooding without having to strain hard in horror or in obviousness. It may not be for everyone, but it surely does what is needed in driving curiosity with the nature of life and death that makes a disorientating experience worth looking into at least once in a lifetime.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Mummy's Hand.

A Farewell to Arms.

Review #1611: A Farewell to Arms.

Cast: 

Helen Hayes (Catherine Barkley), Gary Cooper (Lieutenant Frederic Henry), Adolphe Menjou (Major Rinaldi), Mary Philips (Helen Ferguson), Jack La Rue (Priest), Blanche Friderici (Head Nurse), Mary Forbes (Miss Van Campen), and Gilbert Emery (British Major) Directed by Frank Borzage.

Review: 

It is easy to say a film is overdue to cover when you can see it any time you like, which is particularly true for this film. It was originally distributed by Paramount Pictures, but somehow it managed to fall into the public domain when its copyright was not renewed. This was a film released in the middle of the career of established director Frank Borzage, who by this point in time was the second director to have received two Academy Awards for Best Director (he started his career in 1916, after having appeared in a few short films) with dramas such as 7th Heaven (1927) and Bad Girl (1931). The screenplay was done by Benjamin Glazer (who also co-produced the film) and Oliver H.P. Garrett, which was based on the novel of the same name by Ernest Hemingway. He had written the novel in 1929 that was based on his experiences in World War I, in which he served in the Italian Front (his stint in a Milan hospital with treatment from a nurse that he fell in love with, was dramatized into a film of its own with In Love and War decades later). This is the first of two film adaptations, with the other being released in 1957. This film was released before the advent of a tighter Production Code (hence content like abandoned duty and babies born out of wedlock and such), which means that one has a mix of romanticism and cynicism that proves quite enjoyable.

The film received four Academy Award nominations with Best Picture, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Sound, and it won in the latter two categories, certainly earning a merit as some sort of prestige picture for its time. In other words, it is the kind of movie that you can look to and highlight from the curious era of the 1930s, just making its way out of the silent era while continuing the trend of adapting notable works of literature with spin for its target audience that just happen to deal with either war, romance, or a bit of both (besides, the Best Picture winner that this film lost to happened to involve drama and coverage of war - the inferior Cavalcade (1933), naturally). In that sense, even if Hemingway wasn't exactly thrilled by the film's tone compared to his book, I'm sure one will find enough to enjoy in a romance rift with energy and tragedy. Featured as our stars are two rising stars that would become famous names in time. Hayes was already an actress by the time she was a teenager (she is known as "First Lady of American Theatre" for a reason), and her debut in feature film with The Sin of Madelon Claudet (1931) garnered an Academy Award for her. She reportedly developed a crush on Cooper during production, and it is clear to see a brimming honesty coming from her that makes for a well performance in vulnerability. Cooper had been established as a star with film roles such as The Winning of Barbara Worth (1926) and The Virginian (1929), so it only seems appropriate to see him in a strong brimming kind of film like this, where he towers a bit over Hayes (by at least a foot, although the camera angles certainly help sometimes) that makes for an interesting romantic courtship. He composes himself well in careful charisma like a mighty oak tree, one might say. Not to be forgotten is Menjou, a name actor in silent and sound films (with a select group of lead roles owning to his suave nature that served for a five decade career), playing cavalier with Cooper that works quite well in turning the screws for what is needed without fiddling the mustache in scene-chewing. Philips goes along okay, although it is La Rue who makes memorable effort in a "wedding" sequence in the middle of the film. There were actually two endings to the film, depending on preferences of the theater at the time of release, with one following the novel and the other being more optimistic. Hemingway, displeased already by the altering of tone with his novel into less cynical, was angered by the decision for theater owners. One silver lining is that he struck up a friendship with Cooper that lasted for over 20 years (and he surely must have found it engaging to see Cooper star in another adaptation of his work a decade later). In any case, what we have here is a fine film to see play out for 88 minutes in classic traditional fare for those who like that sort of thing. It isn't great, but it certainly represents a well effort for its stars and director in entertainment, for which one can fit their curiosity for any time they like.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Grand Hotel (1932).

Review #1338: Grand Hotel.

Cast: 
Greta Garbo (Grusinskaya, the dancer), John Barrymore (Baron Felix von Geigern), Joan Crawford (Flaemmchen, the stenographer), Wallace Beery (General Director Preysing), Lionel Barrymore (Otto Kringelein), Lewis Stone (Dr. Otternschlag), Jean Hersholt (Senf, the porter), Robert McWade (Meierheim), Purnell B. Pratt (Zinnowitz), Ferdinand Gottschalk (Pimenov), Rafaela Ottiano (Suzette), and Morgan Wallace (Chauffeur) Directed by Edmund Goulding (#1332 - Hell's Angels)

Review: 
"Grand Hotel. Always the same. People come. People go. Nothing ever happens."

Theatricality goes a long way when you have the star-power to go with it. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer was the studio for stars in the 1930s, and Irving Thalberg was precisely the person to create big films through the power of picks - selecting scripts, gathering staff, etc. He had purchased the rights to adapt the novel Menschen im Hotel (1929) by Vicki Baum (who had been a chambermaid at a few high-class Berlin hotels), which was turned into a play by William A. Drake the following year (a musical of the same name was also adapted from the novel and play in 1989). Drake, alongside un-credited writers in Béla Balázs and Edgar Allan Woolf, helped to turn it into a film through writing, which comes together like a series of vignettes or an anthology piece, but it was one of the first films to utilize more than two stars to serve as headliners, which now seems like a common thing (as proven by future big-name productions in the following decades to be covered another time). It also has one key distinction - the only Best Picture winner to have no nominations in any other category. MGM would continue this trend with the comedy Dinner at Eight (which also features both Barrymores and Beery) the following year, and it would be re-made by the studio in 1945 as Week-End at the Waldorf. In any case, this is a film that has an undeniable staying power with its core five cast that a lesser cast or less capable director would've turned into plain old-hat melodrama. At 112 minutes, it pulls off entertainment that worked for Great Depression audiences and still works for modern audiences, where one shining star doesn't shine too bright over everybody else, mostly because not all of them share the stage at one point in the film. One starts with Garbo, who had risen from parts in films in her native Sweden to star in Hollywood in the span of six years, with her naturalistic acting (which worked well for silent and sound) being just as known as her reclusive nature, right down to the most memorable line of the film being how she just wants to be alone. She fares just fine, mostly when sharing the passion and focus with Barrymore, with her personally requesting red front-lighting for her love scenes, which certainly work. J. Barrymore (nicknamed "The Great Profile" with a noted career of stage and film since 1903) fares just as calmly, where one does not dwell on the considerable age difference between him and Garbo but instead focuses on his charm, which can go for either romance or dialogue with L. Barrymore. Crawford (a resilient star through self promotion alongside talent) shines with resourcefulness, a lady for the moment, whether it is hope or desperation (a role that was trimmed by the censors of the time for various reasons). L. Barrymore proves to be a fair surrogate for the audience, where one wants to see someone's attempt at a mild-mannered attempt at a first and last great gesture of life, although that makes it seem more tragic than it really is, particularly since this part could've been more grating (or on the other hand a sad one) with a different actor. Beery goes for the ham with a German accent in tow (with a promise that only he would have to put on an accent convincing him to sign on), with mixed results, really, although if a heavy is needed, one can't go wrong with someone like Beery. In any case, one will find themselves pulled into a film with spectacle to spare, from its production quality (most signified in its lobby scenes, along with art direction from Cedric Gibbons) down to its reasonable direction from Goulding that keeps everything going to the right room without missing a beat, which makes it endure to this very day.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Shanghai Express.

Review #1337: Shanghai Express.

Cast: 
Clive Brook (Captain Donald "Doc" Harvey), Marlene Dietrich (Shanghai Lily / Madeline), Anna May Wong (Hui Fei), Warner Oland (Henry Chang), Lawrence Grant (Reverend Carmichael), Eugene Pallette (Sam Salt), Gustav von Seyffertitz (Eric Baum), Louise Closser Hale (Mrs. Haggerty), and Emile Chautard (Major Lenard) Directed by Josef von Sternberg (#1325 - Underworld)

Review: 
One needs a little adventure in their life. Of course they also might need a good partner to go along with it to make it really come alive. Naturally, one could think of Marlene Dietrich when asking for a description of someone glamorous and exotic enough for said adventure. Born in Berlin, she had studied the violin and briefly worked in a pit orchestra for a cinema and their silent films before becoming a chorus girl and eventually finding small parts for film and theater, with her first appearance on film being The Little Napoleon (1923). However, it was in 1930 that she received her breakthrough opportunity with the UFA production of The Blue Angel (1930), directed by Josef von Sternberg. He is a director who admitted that he regarded actors as "marionettes, as pieces of color in my canvas...I watch a motion picture as a surgeon watches an operation." That film proved to be a success, and the two would go on to work together at Paramount Pictures for six films in the following five years, with this being the fourth overall collaboration between the two. One can only appreciate the magic occurring on and off camera, with this being a journey with many stops worth checking out in terms of style and charisma, where even the dialogue seems like it is being spoken like a train. As one would expect, there is a vibrant group of characters to view with this adventure, where no one is exactly who they seem at first, much like how one can find themselves revealing things about themselves to strangers if on a trip long enough, and this film fits the bill of satisfaction at 80 minutes. Brook and Dietrich provide a one-two punch of workable chemistry, where one is absorbed in their passion, which works itself quite well with Dietrich when it comes to the camera and focusing on her absorbing qualities, captured neatly by cinematographer Lee Garmes alongside guidance from von Sternberg, who clearly knows what he wants in capturing a star in the midst of shining. Wong proves as resilient in her time on screen, as one could expect from a veteran star that had found success in both Hollywood and Europe despite the prevailing typecasting of the time. Oland, a Swedish born actor whose famous/infamous portrayal of the Chinese-American Charlie Chan remains a topic of discussion decades after his death, does a fine job in making for a compelling adversary, a scoundrel that we at first see with empathy before taking control. Grant provides some sort of moral edge alongside the motley crew of Palllette and the rest to make for an engaging sit-through, where one is entranced to see what goes on like a dream. Simply put, it is a charmer when it needs to be. Onscreen credits refer to this film being adapted from a Harry Hervey work referred to as both "Sky Over China" and "China Pass", although it apparently was never published. In any case, the script from Jules Furthman and Hervey served as the basis for two remakes in Night Plane from Chungking (1942) and Peking Express (1951). It shouldn't prove surprising that this was the hit of its year, even exceeding the star-studded Grand Hotel, which this film was compared to "on wheels". In any case, this is a fair charmer of entertainment, filled with romance and adventure with a wonderful Dietrich performance in a ride from von Sternberg that you never really want to see end.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Most Dangerous Game.

Review #709: The Most Dangerous Game.

Cast
Joel McCrea (Sanger "Bob" Rainsford), Fay Wray (Eve Trowbridge), Leslie Banks (Count Zaroff), Robert Armstrong (Martin Trowbridge), Noble Johnson (Ivan), Steve Clemente (Tartar), and Dutch Hendrian (Servant) Directed by Irving Pichel (#617 - Destination Moon) and Ernest B. Schoedsack (#283 - King Kong and #604 - Mighty Joe Young)

Review
The movie was filmed on the jungle sets of King Kong, with Wray and Armstrong being used for both films, while filmed at night. Strangely enough, this movie managed to be finished first, though it being only barely an hour long in length sure helped. As for the movie, it's pretty good. It has a good atmosphere, and I attribute that mostly to the sets, which make the movie look really nice. McCrea does a good job as the lead, maybe because he just gels well in the short time he has, especially with Wray, who as usual is good at being both a lead and screaming in terror. Banks is a decent villain, he isn't too over the top, and he does do well in the action scenes. In total, the movie is fine mainly because it just gets going quick, even beginning with a ship wreck. I like how it seems there will be three survivors who will be the main focus...and then two of them suddenly get swept away. I guess it means to never assume you've survived a ship wreck, which isn't the worst lesson I've heard. Anyway, the movie is enjoyable and quick, and if you like 30's cinema or thriller movies, you'll like this one.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Horse Feathers.

Review #688: Horse Feathers.

Cast
Groucho Marx (Professor Quincy Wagstaff), Harpo Marx (Pinky), Chico Marx (Baravelli), Zeppo Marx (Frank Wagstaff), Thelma Todd (Connie Bailey), and David Landau (Jennings) Directed by Norman Z. McLeod.

Review
In a way, it's been way too long since I touched upon the Marx Brothers (#085 - Duck Soup), but hey, new year, new things, I suppose. As for the movie itself, it's pretty enjoyable. It moves quickly with its gags and pace, which make for a balanced attack of fun. The plot itself could still work today, especially in our competitive world such as this; it's nice to see a plot line that doesn't out date itself. I think the highlight of the movie is probably near the end of the movie, with the football game. My favorite of the Marxes is Groucho, most because his insults just ring more with me. I like the gags used, especially at the end of the movie involving a chariot. Even watching the scenes before it to give that sentence context wouldn't really help, just watch the movie, which is a really fun flick to watch. And, to ring in the new year and because I like this movie especially and recommend it especially, the first perfect rating of the year.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Mummy (1932).

Review #622: The Mummy.

Cast
Boris Karloff (Ardath Bey/Imhotep), Zita Johann (Helen Grosvenor/Princess Ankh-es-en-Amon), David Manners (Frank Whemple), Arthur Byron (Sir Joseph Whemple), Edward Van Sloan (Dr. Muller), and Bramwell Fletcher (Ralph Norton) Directed by Karl Freund.

Review
When it comes to Universal horror movies, most refer to Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, and the there's The Mummy. The Mummy had its own share of sequels (none of which that relate to this movie though), and a remake that spawned its own series, but thankfully I'm not covering that...yet. The Mummy is short, but horror films from this era weren't usually long anyway, so it makes it really accessible to watch. The Mummy has some impressive effects, especially at the beginning when Imhotep is first shown, in his mummified state, wrapped in bandages, designed by famed makeup artist Jack Pierce, who does a really good job in this film. Karloff is given his chance to shine, he's the most interesting actor in the movie, and his back story for his character is actually pretty entertaining. The rest of the characters aren't too bad, they are after all just the heroes who face off against the more interesting, which is common in some of these movies, but at least it doesn't detract too much from this neat and entertaining film.

Overall I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Death Kiss.

Review #532: The Death Kiss.

Cast
David Manners (Franklyn Drew), Adrienne Ames (Marcia Lane), Bela Lugosi (Joseph Steiner), John Wray (Detective Lieutenant Sheehan), Vince Barnett (Officer Gulliver), Alexander Carr (Leon A. Grossmith), Edward Van Sloan (Tom Avery), Harold Minjir (Howell), and Barbara Bedford (Script Girl) Directed by Edwin L. Marin (#503 - A Christmas Carol (1938))

Review
The point of this week is not just to review Lugosi, but also to give some of his films a bit more recognition, such as this public domain film from 1932. The movie starts out okay, not too shabby. It quickly sets the plot up, essentially a murder mystery, with an interesting tile sequence hat may be the best scene in a short movie. Lugosi doesn't really have much screen time, more of a supporting role that lets Manners take over, which is sort of disappointing, because Lugosi was a distinct actor even when he didn't speak. Bela Lugosi, David Manners (John Harker) and Edward Van Sloan (Van Helsing) are reunited, one year after all three were in Dracula (#071), and while they may not have much interaction, it is  at least interesting enough to be a fun fact to note. And if you're wondering, no the movie is not a horror film. As much as the title sounds like one, it's really just the title of the film within the film in which the murder happens. The movie itself flows okay, it veers between mystery thriller and comedic idiocy. It just feels standardized and not exactly exciting. It does have some moments of brilliancy, such as the idea of having the film revolve around a studio and the film projector being mysteriously filled with acid just as the murderer is about to be revealed but it doesn't save the movie. The film isn't awful, it's just not that good, and if you came for Lugosi, you will be disappointed. Next time, I will be delving into the 1940s for Part Three of Bela Lugosi Week.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Murders in the Rue Morgue.

Review #531: Murders in the Rue Morgue.

Cast
Bela Lugosi (Doctor Mirakle), Sidney Fox (Mademoiselle Camille L'Espanaye), Leon Ames (Pierre Dupin), Bert Roach (Paul), Betty Ross Clarke (Mademoiselle L'Espanaye), Brandon Hurst (Prefect of Police), D'Arcy Corrigan (Morgue Keeper), Noble Johnson (Janos), and Arlene Francis (Streetwalker) Directed by Robert Florey.

Review
I'm very familiar with Bela Lugosi already, with his work in (#071) Dracula, (#183) Plan 9 from Outer Space, (#260) The Wolf Man, (#274) White Zombie, and (#470) Mark of the Vampire. A theme week is 7 reviews of a subject in 7 days (Such as Robot Week with #086-#092, Harry Potter Week with 8 reviews from #117-#124, and the last one until this, Dreamworks Animation Week, from #160-#166), and I'm starting with the earliest Lugosi film I could find on short notice, and end...with his last speaking role. Murders in the Rue Morgue was (loosely) based off a short story by Edgar Allen Poe (notable for being the first detective story), with a few more of his works being adapted by Universal in the following years as part of their Universal Monsters line. Lugosi doesn't do that bad of a job, he certainly has a level of lunacy for this character, and it works well. The rest of the cast do fine and all, they aren't too overdramatic, and while Lugosi nearly steals the show, the cast don't do that bad. This film was sadly butchered upon original release from 80 minutes to 61 minutes by the studio, the deleted scenes apparently being cut due to being deemed too disturbing, and while the film does feel hacked off, the camera angles and the way of filming make up for it just enough. This is a disturbing, but entertaining film that lets Lugosi have his moment. Tune in next time for another one of Lugosi's films from 1932.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Old Dark House.

Review #465: The Old Dark House.

Cast
Boris Karloff (Morgan), Melvyn Douglas (Roger Penderel), Gloria Stuart (Margaret Waverton), Charles Laughton (William Porterhouse), Lilian Bond (Gladys Perkins), Ernest Thesiger (Horace Femm), Raymond Massey (Philip Waverton), Eva Moore (Rebecca Femm), Elspeth Dudgeon (Roderick Femm), and Brember Wills (Saul Femm) Directed by James Whale (#069 - The Invisible Man, #071 - Frankenstein and #394 - Bride of Frankenstein)

Review
Naturally, this was based off a novel, Benighted by J. B. Priestly, this film being made just after Whale's success with Frankenstein, with Karloff also in this film, as a mute butler, and while this isn't his strongest performance, it is an effective one. The film sets itself quickly, probably due to the short length, or to not delay the inevitable, and while most of the visitors of the house aren't really memorable by any means, save for Charles Laughton, who seems to try and liven the film up. The film has its scares and excellent lighting, which all boils down to the climax involving Douglas and Wills, with Karloff joining in briefly. Elspeth Dudgeon, despite her short screen time, helps contribute to the film and the suspense. The film is tense and while it struggles to overcome its feeble minded characters, it certainly is a breeze to get through and Whale does a fine job, house and all.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: White Zombie.

Review #274: White Zombie.

Cast
Béla Lugosi ('Murder' Legendre), Madge Bellamy (Madeleine Short Parker), John Harron (Neil Parker), Robert Frazer (Charles Beaumont), Clarence Muse (The Coach driver), Joseph Cawthorn (Dr. Bruner), Brandon Hurst (Silver), George Burr Macannan (Von Gelder), Frederick Peters (Chauvin), and Annette Stone (Maid) Directed by Victor Halperin.

Review
It has been 80 years, but does it still hold up. In a way, yes, but in another...not so much. On the negative side (for once I do this first), the film's acting is not really good. With the exception of Lugosi, the actors aren't really inspired, not as good as Dracula (#071), it just feels dull. But then what is the main thing that saves it? Bela Lugosi and his eyes. The way he stares at the camera (or the person, whatever) is really gripping at you, almost as much as in Village of the Dmmned (#270) While it isn't as good as other horror films of its time, it did introduce one aspect that would live on to this day: Zombies. So there you go.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.